New Season of American Guns on Discovery Channel

It's a show about Denver Gunsmith and former law enforcement officer Rich Wyatt and his family, who own and operate Gunsmoke. Among other things, Gunsmoke teaches people how to properly use guns in self-defense.

The Wyatts are your typical suburban family who just happened to own one of the premiere firearms facilities in the world. Rich Wyatt and his wife Renee own Gunsmoke, located outside Denver, Colorado, where they buy, sell and trade guns - from hand canons to hunting rifles. And if you don't see what you want, they'll build one for you - from nothing more than a block of metal. Gunsmoke has the largest and most experienced group of gunsmiths in the state. When the Wyatts aren't building or selling guns, they're shooting them. No gun leaves their shop without being test fired by the family first. They - and the one-of-a-kind and historic guns they make and sell - are featured in Season 2 AMERICAN GUNS, premiering Wednesday, April 25th at 7PM Mountain Time.

[More...]

Lots of people fear or don't understand using guns for self-defense. There's even a word for it: Hoplophobia, an irrational fear of weapons.

I interviewed Rich Wyatt last Thursday, after my friend Jesse Csinscak, the professional snowboarder and former Bachelorette winner, told me his wife Ann just finished the three day pistol class and is now a "convert." Before the classes, she didn't want guns around the house, and especially around their toddler. Now, she's no longer afraid, and can draw her gun and get off a shot, hit a target at conversational distance, in under a second. (The school strives for under a second and a half.) From Jesse's website:

Jesse and Ann Csincsak, both of The Bachelor fame, learned firsthand the importance of taking such a self-defense class. Prior to signing up for the class, they both agreed that they needed to learn the necessary skills to protect their family. However, they disagreed about having weapons in the house: Jesse was comfortable with the idea, while Ann was against it. Jesse reached out to Wyatt, who recommended that they sign up for the course and said that he’d refund their money if Ann didn’t have a change of heart.

Of the experience, Jesse shares, “The class teaches you that a gun is a tool. If you pull your gun and you own it, the bad guy is going to run in the other direction nine times out of ten. You have to present with self-confidence.”

Jesse and Ann will be featured in an upcoming episode.

Rich is a believer in the Jeff Cooper "pure doctrine." You can read about Colonel Cooper here. He was a master firearms instructor and one of the 20th century's foremost experts on the use and history of small arms. His philosophy stresses self-reliance and self-defense. Rich Wyatt is one of only six people in the world certified by Col. Cooper.

Rich stresses Colonel Cooper's four rules of gun safety:

All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.

Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

Col. Cooper also used a color code to describe the stages a person goes through when confronted with a situation calling for self defense. From Volume 7 of his Commentaries:

Vol. 13 #7 of his Commentaries.

"In White you are unprepared and unready to take lethal action. If you are attacked in White you will probably die unless your adversary is totally inept.

In Yellow you bring yourself to the understanding that your life may be in danger and that you may have to do something about it.

In Orange you have determined upon a specific adversary and are prepared to take action which may result in his death, but you are not in a lethal mode.

In Red you are in a lethal mode and will shoot if circumstances warrant."

Rich told me he believes everyone should be armed. He's armed at all times, even around his kids and family. He said:

Don’t be a victim. Don't show fear. Someone wanting to harm you will sense it right away, the same way dogs can sense people who are afraid of them.

Be alert to what’s going on around you. Being alert doesn’t mean making eye contact. It means looking at everything. Eyes don’t tell you what the person has in their hand.

Be prepared to use reasonable force to protect yourself.

Be armed and have the proper mindset for using a gun. No one can take a gun away from someone who’s properly trained.

Rick's Essential Pistol classes include a day in the classroom and a full 2 days on our private outdoor range. The class accommodates around 16 students and costs $750.00. Among the lessons:

Drawing from a holster

Tactical vs. Combat reloads

Cleaning your gun

Engaging multiple targets

Engaging your target in under 1.5 seconds.

Also included in this class is a mindset lecture, based on Col. Jeff Cooper's Pure Doctrine.

Rich says after this class, you will be ready for action, with all the necessary skills to be confident and competent with your firearm. You will be able to draw your gun and strike a target who is within a conversational distance in less than 1.5 seconds.

The crux, Rich said, is the decision time. It takes 3/4 of a second to make the decision, 3/4 of a second to communicate the decision from your brain to your fingertips and 1/2 a second to hit the target with a bullet.

More from my interview with Rich:

Where do you aim? The center of the chest. You aren’t trying to kill, but to stop the target.

Rich maintains most home invasions and robberies are committed by those who are high on drugs, and not your average criminal. You have to be prepared to fight.

Most households have items more dangerous to kids than their parent’s firearms: Drano, knives, scissors. Be responsible, when your gun isn’t on you, keep it in a locked box or cabinet.

Train your children. For one thing, this takes the “forbidden fruit” concept out of the picture. The curiosity and desire to use a gun are lessened when the gun is treated as an every day object.

What age should you start training kids to use a gun? It depends on the kid. Age 5 is typical, some kids are ready at age 4. Some kids are never ready. “You can’t fix stupid” he says. His rule for his own kids was that they had to be able to write out the safety rules before he allowed them to shoot.

You can teach kids to understand guns and the devastation they cause. For example, shoot up a bucket of water. They get the picture.

Again, if you're interested in guns and self-defense, tune in to the Discovery Channel tonight for the season premiere of American Guns, with Gunsmoke’s Rich Wyatt and his family. And if you want to get rid of your Hoplophobia, consider signing up for Gunsmoke's classes.

There were 1000 Times More People killed last year in Car Accidents than in Gun Related Deaths!

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005.

The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed.

About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

So then your saying we should have less cars too then right?

I do however AGREE WITH YOU that if you haven't taken a 3 day gun training course like the one that the Wyatts offer that I have actually taken with my wife then you SHOULD NOT be allowed to own a gun!

If you also look at the crime rates in the states that don't allow Conceal Carry Liscenses their Crime Rates are way higher than the states that do allow Conceal Carry Liscenses.

I don't Believe this has anything to do with guns however I do believe that Theifs pray on people who are weak and cant defend themselves like someone without a weapon.

So my point is if your gonna own a gun take a multi day training course and learn to defend yourself

Fortunately, only 9% of Hawaii households have guns, and we're not one of them. Neither surprisingly nor coincidentally, our state also has the lowest homicide and violent crime rates in the country. With one million people, Honolulu is considered the safest major city in the entire United States.

Since you're into facts, here are a few more for you and others to consider. States with the highest gun ownership rates have gun death rates that are seven times higher on average that those states with the lowest household gun ownership, such as Hawaii -- and those states also average a 115% higher firearm homicide rate and 60% higher overall homicide rate, too.

Further, the risk of gun violence -- i.e., homicide, attempted homicide, suicide, or unintentional / accidental shooting -- is seven times higher in a gun-owning household, than in a household where guns are not present.

The risk of a homicide occurring in gun-owning households is three times higher than in gun-free homes.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, attempted homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting, than to be used in self-defense.

Approximately 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 22% of all aggravated assaults reported to the police in 2006 were committed with a firearm.

An estimated 40% of gun-related homicides and 95% of gun-related suicides would not have occurred under the same circumstances, had a gun not been present to facilitate the deed.

In almost half of unintentional shooting deaths reported in the United States for 2010 (49%), the victim was shot by another person. In nearly all of these cases, the shooter and victim knew one another. Of those victims, about two-thirds were under 25 years of age.

American women who are killed by their intimate partners are more likely to be killed with guns than by all other methods combined. Women are twice as likely to be shot and killed by intimate partners, as they are to be murdered by random strangers using any type of weapon.

You have every right under the Second Amendment to own a gun. But if you do, or if you are considering the purchase of a weapon for your household, please do so with your eyes wide open regarding the possible adverse consequences of gun ownership, and please make an honest and wise assessment of your household's potential for a firearms incident to occur before making that purchase.

And for heaven's sake, don't take refuge in misleading "apples and oranges" comparisons of death rates due to firearms or auto accidents, especially if you are in a household with children under the age of 18.

Because among gun-owning parents who reported that their children had never handled their firearms at home, over one in five of those children -- when questioned separately -- admitted that they had. And in households where the firearms were supposedly stored securely, over half of the children residing in those households admitted that they either knew the combination of the lock, or where the key was kept.

The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

This right does not make the U.S. crazy, nor do Supreme Court decisions upholding it, "open the floodgates."

DC v. Heller (2008): The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,

McDonald v. Chicago(2010): The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process and the 14th Amendment and is applicable to the states:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day....t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

How ancient? The Supreme Court said:

Citing Jewish, Greek, and Roman law, Blackstone wrote that if a person killed an attacker, "the slayer is in no kind of fault whatsoever, not even in the minutest degree; and is therefore to be totally acquittedand discharged, with commendation rather than blame." 4 W. Black-stone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 182 (reprint 1992).

Also from McDonald:

[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon". Thus, we concluded [in Heller], citizens must be permitted "to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

That doesn't mean they can't be regulated to protect the public. The Supreme Court made it clear:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms." We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms

To me, it is the handguns that are the problem. Canada bans them. Just like we ban some guns.

I agree with Canada.

And though it hasn't been mentioned how many of you know of anyone who actually has shot and killed a human being?

I don't think you'd find it pleasant. And I do think it would haunt you for the rest of your life. Even trained law enforcement professionals are severely traumatized by it. That is why they go through counseling to deal with it.

And of course we have the local gun owner here who nearly killed a neighborhood teenage boy who was fleeing from breaking into his garage.

Yep, great idea to start blasting away to protect your tool box. Never mind it's the neighbors son who got drunk and thought it would be a good idea to steal something from your garage.

they're the worst...the primary purpose of handguns over rifles or shotguns, imo, is to conceal them.

A rifle or shotgun are sufficient for home defense, and if ya see somebody walking down the street with a rifle or shotgun you at least know what you're up against. A concealed handgun gives you no warning to tread carefully.

That being said, prohibition is a fool's errand...you just create criminals.

Not only is a shotgun sufficient it is far superior. Far far superior.

The 380's, 38's 9mm's often don't stop the perps. Often. If, and it ain't easy, you are good enough to actually hit your target.

Think about it. It's dark. The guy ain't facing you and maybe is slightly shielded. And if he has a gun and intends to do you harm the only way to beat him to the draw is if you carry your weapon in your hand.

Shooting a family member or getting shot with your own gun. Or another popular one around here is one of the kids gets a hold of the gun and shoots his sibling. It happened just recently with a law enforcement officer's kids. One dead. One haunted for the rest of his life. Mom and Dad utterly crushed.

And to prevent that you can lock your gun in a safe. Just hope that the intruder you intend on shooting allows you enough time to open your safe and get your gun.

the number of situations in which children and others were accidentally killed by guns

the number of situations in which criminals used guns to kill people

the number of situations in which people committed suicide using guns after failing to commit suicide in other ways.

I think that if society looked at the numbers, they would question whether the lives saved in 1 justified the lives destroyed in 2-4.

The counter is always "it's in the constitution . . . you have that right".

True.

But I was considered less than a person by those same individuals. They wrote a good document but it is not perfect.

It is completely plausible to me that the optimal society would have tighter restrictions on gun ownership but the will to amend the constitution to make that happen will never exist.

This is one issue where pointing to the second amendment doesn't mean the end of the discussion.

Given the way that gun advocates read the provision, I still don't understand how they can support gun bans against felons, individuals who possess chemical weapons and a host of other items that fit squarely within their reading of the provision. There are obviously limits that society has agreed to on what the amendment means. Pointing to the language or even the back and forth court cases shouldn't be the end of the discussion because society plays a role in shaping what is appropriate.

According to licences, firearms are classified into prohibited, restricted and non-restricted categories, as defined by Part III of Criminal Code (R.S., 1985, c. C-46)[28] Note: The word "prohibited" is a classification and does not indicate that such firearms are "prohibited" as per the normal use of the word.

of the debate as far as I'm concerned. I've always felt that gun ownership is a right that infringes on the rights of everyone around you. If shooting a gun was something that everyone could do and only endanger themselves, then I wouldn't care who owns a gun or why. However, unlike deciding between vanilla and chocolate ice cream for dessert, choosing to possess a tool that has no other purpose than to put large and often lethal holes in things is a choice that affects everyone around you.

That's why I get some assurance from knowing why a person wants to own a gun. Is it to hunt, or target shoot? Sure, why not. Hunting and target shooting is usually done away from folks who don't want to be there. Is it because the person believes that he/she needs a gun for self defense, and that need is greater than the threat to their safety or their family and friends? Your choice, but I think folks with that attitude should be belled like an angry bull in the pasture, so others can know they're around.

But the one answer to gun ownership that makes me look askance at the speaker is "because it's my right." That's not a reassuring answer to "why?" It's the answer you get from folks who carry guns to political rallies, or into churches.

leave Jesse's spelling alone. His point is clear enough. No personal insults allowed here. Not everyone is a perfect speller. And he's my friend and I don't especially don't allow my friends to be insulted here.

Disagree with what he says if you want, but don't personally insult him.

As a now-former hunter, I don't have a problem with one's Second Amendment rights to gun ownership. But I do want people to understand that the aforementioned statistics I cited from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control are very real. Gun ownership can give people a false sense of personal security, and indeed may even place them at greater risk of becoming a victim than they otherwise would be were a gun not present.

It's about taking personal responsibility to make informed decisions, by first assessing both wisely and honestly your household's risk for a firearms mishap or incident, before you introduce a gun into your home -- especially if you have young children, or you are in a personal situation where domestic violence may be a potential issue. Gun violence only has to happen once, and there are no mulligans and do-overs.

and it's too bad the gun nuts are so firmly in denial of the facts. I also don't happen to believe the 2nd amendment says what gun rights people think it says. But I'm a trained editor, and I know about dependent and independent clauses.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, attempted homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting, than to be used in self-defense.

That makes a gun far safer than a bathtub. While a bathtub has been used in homicide, attempted homicide, suicide, and unintentional drowning it is virtually never used in self defense. OK call it 100 times less likely to be used in self defense.

... compares the risks (firearm deaths) and benefits/utility (use as self defense) of firearms. It's a common risk/benefit analysis. The comparison to bathtubs, however, is an apples-to-oranges comparison, because the utility of a bathtub is not as a weapon for self-defense.

But the metric was used as stand alone. There was no comparison to any other means of self defense tool.

So what? A cost/benefit analysis comparing the benefit (self defense) to the cost (firearm deaths) is a legitimate metric. If you think want to do some sort of comparative analysis to some other "self defense tool", knock yourself out.

But in the end we can probably both agree that a gun is a much better choice for self defense than a bathtub, or any thing else suggested in the original post of numeric "facts."

We can, but that's irrelevant to the fact that (unlike the self defense/firearms death comparison), it's a completely ridiculous metric or argument.

Yes. I am saying we should have less cars too. And it goes far beyond just those killed by them.

"If you also look at the crime rates in the states that don't allow Conceal Carry Liscenses their Crime Rates are way higher than the states that do allow Conceal Carry Liscenses."

All right. I'll bite. It is your claim. Let's see something to substantiate it.

Some very cheap and very good advice. If you are afraid in your home get yourself a dog, And if you think you need a gun in order to go somewhere or to confront someone, don't go there or call the police.

you should advise people what they should do in their own homes and for their own protection.

If you don't want to be armed, don't be. But at least recognize that others have the right to do so, and there are arguments to be made in support of it. No one should have to rely on a dog and some people don't have the time to spend with a dog or desire to own one. I think it's really sad for dogs who are left alone all day while their owners work.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. People lose that right when they have been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. They aren't allowed to have firearms when on bond, probation or parole.

For everyone else, it's a right, and if you don't approve, don't learn about them or arm yourself.

This post encourage those who do want to protect themselves and their family with a firearm, as is their right, to do so responsibly by learning how to use and care for them properly.

Which, under the laws of those countries, are highly regulated, including the sale/possession of ammunition, the number of guns, the types of guns, and even where the guns may be stored/used.

Also, while the list - spread put in horizontal format with spaces between - makes it appear as though there are many Western Europeans who own guns (and, presumably, do not question the "US obsession with guns"), the more relevant issue is how many members are there compared to the general population. For that matter, what percentage of the population in Western Europe own guns.

Against the backdrop of deadly school shootings in Finland and Germany, European Union legislators Thursday overwhelmingly backed tough new gun control rules they said they hoped would prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States...

European legislators of all political stripes said the new rules were essential to prevent Europe from embracing the gun culture of the United States, where the right to bear arms is written in the Constitution...

The incidence of gun ownership differs widely across the EU. Currently, there are 36 firearms per 100 people in Cyprus and 32 in Sweden, according to a Geneva-based research group, the Small Arms Survey. At the bottom of the scale is Poland with one weapon per 100 people, the Netherlands with 3 and Estonia and Ireland with 9.

This would be in comparison to the US, where @ 45% of household have guns.

You mean the same Switzerland where gun carry permits are tightly regulated, usually issued only to private citizens who are in security? Where not almost every home has a gun, but many do as part of their military service - mostly long guns rather than concealable handguns? The same one that issues guns to their regulated, trained, government militia? Where you have to show a need for carrying a weapon and pass an exam after training? The same Switzerland that only allows special rapid deployment units and the military police to keep ammunition at home?

...it's a truism. I'm happy to be an American, many Canadians are happy they're not American. So it goes.

The spectacle of being thankful for being born inside certain borders with certain privileges is pretty ridiculous. Should we be "thankful" that we're not somewhere that has car bombs going off every day, rampant ethnic cleansing, or bans on girls' education? Sure. Should we choose to focus on how we're thankful that we're not Canadian? That's silliness and debases the concept of gratitude to mere jingoism.

I do however AGREE WITH YOU that if you haven't taken a 3 day gun training course like the one that the Wyatts offer that I have actually taken with my wife then you SHOULD NOT be allowed to own a gun!

Millions of people get perfectly adequate training from friends and relatives. You would have had a point I could agree with if you'd said that people should get training from a formal course, but the second you go from that to "SHOULD NOT be allowed" to exercise a fundamental right, you're off the rails.

I think we both agree that gun owners need training plain and simple all that I am saying is trained from an actual trainer and here is why

I was a professional snowboarder for 15 years and was also a Certified Snowboarding Coach

I knew tons of Professional snowboarders who refused to teach people to snowboard because they knew they couldn't teach it properly.

Just because your good at something doesn't mean you should teach others to do it. There is a huge difference between doing something well and breaking down those same skills so others can digest the information and do it as well as you do.

That's why people pay 700 dollars a day for ski lessons just because your a great skiier doesnt mean your a good ski instructor that's all I am saying!

I have shot guns my whole life and just over a month ago I was out with friends who had never seen a gun showing them things and after taking this Certified Gun Training course with the Wyatts I realized I was doing Tons of things in correctly.

What you are saying is that you must be a "professional" to teach. Following that logic parents must first be a Chef and get a certificate to teach their kids how to cook. etc., etc., etc.

On a side note, what you are also doing is putting more power into the hands of the "state" and because training will cost money you are denying the poor the ability to own a gun. Plus, you are creating a handy list for the government to use to confiscate our weapons if people such as jharp ever seize power.

for the first time recently. A friend of mine had purchased a gun for home security reasons and had yet to test it so we went. It was an interesting experience. I'm not sure if I would want a gun for protection or not but I'm glad that I tried it out and was exposed to, for lack of a better description, people who really like guns. If I had a TV right now I might watch this show out of curiosity at least.

... when in the hands of responsible people -- emphasis on the word "responsible."

But let's face it, there are a lot of people out there who really have no business having or owning a gun. Tragically and far too often, we only learn who many of them are ex post facto, rather than take even the minimal proactive steps to identify potential problems before they ever occur.

Strictly my opinion, but I happen to believe that we've made firearms far too easily accessible and available to every Tom, Dick and Harry in this country, with far too few corresponding steps taken to assure that Tom, Dick and Harry are also duly educated regarding both the accompanying responsibilities and liabilities of gun ownership.

and potentially a tragedy waiting to happen. a "3 day class" isn't going to make you much more versant in self-defense, with a gun, than no training at all. if that were actually true, police and the military could certainly reduce training costs significantly. oddly enough, they haven't. could there possibly be a reason for this? i suspect so. what that course will do is give you a false sense of competence and overconfidence, most likely leading to your's or a loved one's untimely demise.

intense training and constant experience provides the necessary skills to deal with a possible "self-defense" situation, with weapon in hand. this is why we're genetically programmed with a "fight or flight" response: flight historically results in a greater probability of survival.

i've been around weapons since i was but a young sprout, living in base quarters (dad is a retired, combat veteran marine). i've handled a wide range of military & civilian small arms. i'm pretty accurate, at ranges up to 100 yards, w/wo scope (i'm also quite dangerous with a bow). i've taken the NRA course, etc. none of this has prepared me for actual combat, with my very life on the line. neither will this "3 day class", unless the very first thing they teach is to run in the opposite direction, if at all possible.

I am the same as you bud. I have been around weapons since I was 6 yrs old all my uncles and father were in the military and I have handled a wide range of guns as well I was able to hit coke cans with a rifle at 300 yards with very little training and hit human sized targets at 60 yards with a pistol which anyone who knows anything about pistols knows thats a pretty far shot for a pistol

However something you probably dont know is this

there are only 6 MASTER FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS in the world and Rich Wyatt is one of them this guy trains every kind of military man to shoot including Seals

so I am not saying the training you have had is not good however there is a big difference between a general class and a 3 day class from this guy..

I KNOW FIRST HAND..

SO please dont tell me its not good training I learned more in this class in 3 days than I did in 25 yrs in the field.. I DARE YOU TO TAKE IT!!

Reminds me of some of the old threads back in the mid 2000's when the societal issues as they relate to crime were often hotly debated instead of posts about how some blogger doesn't know jack about politics.

If your Second Amendment argument is based on personal ownership of firearms being a check on government power, then howitzers on the front lawn HAVE to be legal, since no one's rifle is going to stop a government tank. If you are arguing from an originalist perspective, then you have to accept very strict controls. Either way, nothing in this debate is ever really honest.

The idea that we stick to every literal word in a piece of paper written ages ago when the world was very different is absurd to me and, further, is only used differentially by people to advance their agendas anyway.

but many of y'all gun owners sound downright paranoid. I've lived in NYC my entire life, traveled through all kinds of neighborhoods, rode the subway all hours of the night and don't need a gun. I bet half of the folks clamoring for guns don't have anything to worry about other than what's been discussed so far, coyotes and wild boar. Not being a victim, IMO, is more about attitude and confidence. A gun gives one a false sense of it.

To worry about the one instance when you may need a gun for protection seems akin to predicting the date/time of one's death, it's not worth it, IMO. Do it because you like shooting and it's a learned skill. To claim it's for self-defense when you've never been placed in a position where you need it seems a like a silly rationalization. Be honest, you just want to feel tougher than the rest of the sheep in your neighborhood. ;-)

I think this common conflation of "gun rights" and the so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws is terribly wrong-headed.

The "Stand Your Ground" laws are about justifiable use of deadly force, not guns per se. They could be applied to stabbings, beatings, guard dog maulings, whatever.

Gun rights laws are about the ability to buy, own, and carry (keep and bear) firearms without undue restriction or harassment.

Gun rights do NOT mean the ability to freely use the weapons however the gun owners may wish. There's NO Constitutional protection for lethal gun usage in society. There's NO Constitutional limitation on how society may regulate penalties for lethal gun usage. Society gets to regulate that usage, and gets to do so without being insulted as "un-American" or irrationally "hoplophobia".

"Stand Your Ground" is simply not a 2nd Amendment issue, and when people try to make it into one to bring the 2nd Amendment in (let's say) the Zimmerman case, that's wrong and/or dishonest (depending on whether the person's read the 2nd Amendment recently).

The President of the NRA, Hammer, crafted the first SYG law and has tied it very closely with gun rights. Many of the strongest advocates of SYG are also gun rights advocates and vice versa.

The bottom line, for me, is that the NRA and gun right advocates have moved beyond just protecting their rights to have guns (which were never in danger anyway) and into being able to use their guns more freely and carry them in more places.

It's all a part of the same bundle, the core of which is not the 2nd amendment (the amendment is just the tool).

The point is that they want to be able to carry guns everywhere they go and shoot people that they feel are threatening them in any way.

If the second amendment allows that, great. If the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, they'd be pushing legislation which gave them that freedom.

That's just my opinion of course and does not apply to everyone who feels strongly about gun rights.

#1 Guns are over used
#2 Everyone who owns a gun should receive Proper Training before being aloud to attain a gun.

If everyone on the planet took a course like the Wyatts I promise you situations like the Zimmerman one would not happen!

We Spend Hours talking about the zimmerman case in our class and different possible outcomes

I agree that there are to many UNTRAINED Knuckleheads running around with guns

I should know I shot guns for 20 years with only training from my military trained family just because they had great training doesnt mean they trained me properly

I was CLUELESS until I took The Wyatts 3 day class!

I Urg anyone who loves or hates guns to take it you will ENJOY IT I love guns and took it and my wife hated guns and took it with me! Now we both have the knowledge of right or wrong when it comes to guns !

My daughter's ex husband was very very drunk a few nights back. She is about to get married again. He knocked on a mutual friends door in the neighborhood around midnight, couldn't really communicate well enough to tell the people he woke up why he was there or what he needed. And then a gun fell out of his waistband onto the floor, and the guy of the house threw him out. Notified my daughter and my future son-in-law yesterday.

I hate guns. I hate stand your ground laws too, and Alabama has one exactly like Florida does. And I have an ex SIL who was recently forced out of the Army for a reason that we don't know running around drunk with a gun while our daughter is marrying someone else. Screw guns, guns suck!

We have no idea what sort of frame of mind ex husband is in. He hasn't made any direct threats though that we are aware of. The groom's father is a gun nut though, and with this stand your ground law around here if the worst thing happened.....gee, what then, a shoot out? Bang bang shoot em up, bullets flying, bullets are the new law? Where should I instruct my granddaughters to stand if that happens?

I also keep a fire extinguisher and a spare tire in the car. You can't ever tell when you will need emergency equipment. As a matter of fact if I think I am going to need a gun at some place or other, I don't go there in the first place.

Two of the long guns are lever action rifles. When I look at the picture I see a family who appreciates old iron. Except for the two side arms the girls are sporting, the fire arms in the pictures are classics representing the state of the art about 130 years ago. The lever action rifles and the two single action pistols are true American classics.
Does not strike me as any odd at all. Similar to the guy driving the 66 Mustang Fastback I passed on my way into work this morning.

When my wife was pregnant she used to go hiking in the woods with my dogs ( 2 Siberian Huskies )
One day she & my dogs were being stalked by this pack of Coyotes! My wife Immediately Called me on the phone and Asked what she should do? Luckily I was in the Area in my Jeep and had my Shotgun in the back. I got them into the Jeep Just as the Pack decided to come at them! I pulled my 12 Guage Shotgun out and Put the Threat to sleep.

Guess Its a good thing I didn't walk the other way and call the police and had my handy TOOL in my Jeep!

6 yrs ago my cousin ( A POLICE OFFICER ) was at a BBQ at our families house. The Neighbors were renting their home out to some new tenants who had 2 Vicious Rotwilers in their backyard.
All the little kids were out in our backyard playing in the sand box when the Rotwilers Jumped the neighbors fence and attacked one of the kids! My cousin was off duty at the time and ran into the backyard pulled his gun and shot both dogs saving the 6yr old girl from possible death!

Guess its a good thing my cousin was carrying his weapon & didn't walk the other way and call the police!

The point is If we just had less people and Less cars and less this and less that the world would be a safer place! so instead of calling the police everytime we hear a noise wherever it is that we might be doesnt it make sense to just give yourself the skill of learning how to defend yourself on your own !! I THINK SO !!

DO you call someone for help everytime you eat a meal or go to the bathroom or go to work ? I hope not You rely on yourself for those things so why should you rely on someone else to save your own life! USE YOUR BRAIN!!

"so instead of calling the police everytime we hear a noise wherever it is that we might be doesnt it make sense to just give yourself the skill of learning how to defend yourself on your own !! I THINK SO !!"

The police are supposed to be involved because they have the training - not just gun training, but the training to assess situations, to judge when something is or is not threatening, the level of a threat, how to diffuse volatile situations, etc. A regular person, no matter how much "gun training" one might have, isn't a trained and educated law enforcement official.

9 times outta ten when you get put in a situation where you would need a gun YOU CANT MAKE A PHONE CALL USE YOUR HEAD and I promise you cant run faster than 1500 ft per second that's how fast the bullet will hit you when you try to run away

Right now whats happening when you talk is poop is pouring from within you..

Lets use common sense here and agree the best Idea is to know how to wipe our own rears and to make our own dinners

AND ESPECIALLY to know how to defend ourselfs

HAVE THE TRAINING AND NEVER HAVE TO PUT IT TO USE IS WHAT I HOPE FOR EVERYDAY however I have already written two threads on this page where calling the police wouldn't have worked read above!!

I Go off of 1st hand proven facts like i have written in the threads above not hope in the police !!

Yes I live less than a mile away and the fastest the police have ever gotten to my house is about 3 minutes.

Here is a little Scenario for you to think about where Minutes equal HOURS = You come home one night and go up to your room after work to find a robber in your room going through your valuebles you turn and run down the stairs to find another robber downstairs that you didn't see.

Something you will learn in this 3 day course is this.

It takes a human Being 3/4 of a second to make a decision then another 3/4 of a second to send that decision from the brain to the hand so thats a second and a half of time.

Well when you get downstairs in your home and run into the second robber you stop in your tracks and now are facing him and the robber that was upstairs comes downstairs and stands just feet to the right of the other robber.They Both have guns pointed at you!

They tell you to give them your wallet - so you put your hand back to your wallet but it just happens that your Colt 1911 pistol is concealed right above your wallet so you pull your gun and fire off 2 shots hitting both robbers in under 1 second.

Even with a gun pointed at you it will take 3/4 of a second for one of them to decide to shoot you then another 3/4 of a second for them to send the message from their brain to the gun to pull the trigger ! But you have already made the decision to shoot them YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE so you pull out what they think is your wallet and by the time they realize you have pulled a gun it has already shot them !

So for all of you call the police people this is a perfect situation where YOU CANT CALL THE POLICE AND RUNNING WONT WORK !!

My wife hated guns until she took the course and in 3 days training she learned to Draw her gun and get off a shot in 0.080 Thats under a second so if you think a second and a half isnt enough time YOUR WRONG I have seen this idea i wrote above first hand !!

So you can try and use your call the police idea... I will get the proper training shoot the Robbers and exercise the colorado make my day law rights and we will see who ends up in a box first what do you say ?? THE POLICE INVESTIGATE CRIMES AFTER THEY HAPPEN THEY RARELY STOP CRIMES IN PROGRESS !!

Everytime you turn on cops what do you see them chasing someone after they did something 100 to 1

firearms use is certainly a good thing to do, but no citizen knows how he or she will react when placed in a real-life situation; you can brag all you want about how quick-on-the-draw you or your wife are, but that same lightning-fast reaction time is why people get shot by mistake: wife wakes up in the night, hears noises, and shoots at what she thinks is an intruder - who turns out to be a family member.

Some may appreciate your enthusiasm, but to me you come across as a latter-day gunslinger with entirely too much emotion on board to be able to objectively and rationally use a loaded gun; I would not want my children in your home, ever.

I get that you are Jeralyn's friend, and no one is allowed to say anything bad about her friends, but in my opinion, you do not represent the best choice for promoting gun rights.

Pardon my piggy back post attached to your comment. What I have to say is not specifically directed to you. Since your posts have the feel of maturity and reason this "safe harbor" might be the place from which my comments can get the reflection I hope they render.

No one can experience another person's experience. You can imagine, think about, empathize with, and/or imagine, but experience? No, no. It's one of the reasons many released prisoners don't talk about their jail time, or combat veterans about their battlefield experience. No one could possibly know (or really understand.)

Evolution has hard wired us to not kill each other (person to person), thus we have "civilization." The idea that ordinary citizens can be "trained," in a three day, or three year, course to shoot and kill another human, regardless of provocation, is counter factual, and terribly, horribly, dangerous. (Just Google this point and you'll get 1000 posts from law enforcement, the military, and human behavior experts testifying to the veracity of my claims.)

As far back as the Civil War (and probably before) military leaders understood this point. When formulating battle plans they knew that less than 40%, usually less than 25%, of our soldiers would purposely aim, and fire with the intent to kill, the enemy soldiers. They will fire, but not at the humans they're ordered to shoot. This is not new news. We've done studies which estimate that it took +50,000 rounds to kill a single German soldier in WW2. (and, trust me, our guys were not just "bad shots.)

My own personal experience in the 60's is replete with examples of that phenomenon. I have received individual surrenders from the enemy, not because they were greatly out manned, but because they simply couldn't pull the trigger when facing a living, breathing human.

The only purpose of this post is my hope that anyone contemplating the "handgun-for-protection" option do so with long study, reflection, and expert advice, both physically and psychologically.

The facts are out there; all point that introducing a handgun into a civilian's home overwhelmingly increases the odds of you, or your loved ones, being the victims of that gun. Not everyone, for sure, but concentrate on "your, and your family's odds of being killed by the handgun you bought for protection are overwhelmingly on the side of the perpetrator."

LoL, I have to laugh though. Every once in a while I get the inspiration to write a long post, hopefully bringing out irrefutable facts that would be helpful to both sides of a contentious issue such as this one. Unfortunately, it's usually towards the end of the thread as it approaches 200 comments.

And, then I wait....alone....and wait....and wait for a response. Of course, by then everyone has moved on, or the thread is locked down. Oh, the despair of an unrequited blog poster.

But, today you broke the curse, and for that I will always be grateful:)

I doubt it. I usually go off of Facts and what I see or know of First hand and here is why.

I have worked in the TV Business for a few years now I was even Lucky enough to Host the NEWS for the Associated Press for the 2010 Winter Olympics and what I am about to tell you is what I learned about the news FIRST HAND from that Experience!

If I don't like Tiger Woods when I write the news
Yep that's right when ( I WRITE THE NEWS ) YES = people actually write the news its not factual its just the opinion of the person writing it.... Then Tiger Woods isn't gonna look to good after my news cast with that said =

If I don't like Guns when I write the news I can make guns look like the worst thing since Cocaine!

My point is you seem to be someone who has very little first hand experience with Fire Arms and probably no Actual 1st hand Training with Firearms. And I dont mean training like Oh well my dad took me on a week long hunting trip I mean A certified Professional training you!

I bet your that guy who is glued to the TV every night and thinks if it was on the news it must be true

Do everyone on this site a favor until you get your info from somewhere other than first hand or from the news save us all the NONSENSE !!

I owned a Bike once but I was never properly trained how to ride it by Dave Mira so I don't hop on Bike sites and pretend to be a Know it all about bikes = Please Return the favor on this site!

I can tell you over a half a dozen instances 1st hand that a Firearm has saved a life in my immediate family! 2 of which I mentioned in this thread in another post.

So we can sit here all night and go back and forth but these are the facts

You can hate on guns all you want but the fact is this Guns don't kill people PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

I cant think of a better way to unclog a drain than with Draino.

I cant think of a better way to cut a piece of meat than with a Knife.

I cant think of a better way to keep my 15 month old son off of my staircase than with a baby gate.

I can't think of a better way to cut paper than with a pair of scissors

And I can't think of a way to protect my family from possible threats than with my gun.

All of these things I just listed above are in almost every household in America and can be fatal to someone using them if not used properly
My 15 month old son could die from ingesting draino or being cut on a major Blood Vessel by a knife or scissors and he could also die from falling down the stairs if I don't use a baby gate.

My Point is dont blame the gun for the death Guns don't fire themselves Knifes & Scissors don't cut people PEOPLE DO IT TO PEOPLE

Again if you think guns kill people then your saying

Cars make people drive drunk
Pencils miss spell words
Spoons make people fat

"You can hate on guns all you want but the fact is this Guns don't kill people PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE."

Uh, as bumper stickerish as this is, that's the point. No one is against "guns" as pieces of metal or carbon fiber. They're against the use of them by people in certain situations, and against the legalization of activities and mindsets that encourage overuse.

because JHarp called you a liar and personal attacks are not allowed on this site. No one is allowed to call another person a liar, stupid, an idiot, etc. People are allowed to disagree but they have to do so civilly.

Although coyotes are typically shy and reclusive, they are also intelligent creatures that learn to adapt to changing conditions in their surroundings. As Colorado's growing population continues to encroach on coyote habitat, coyotes can lose their fear of people. Once that happens, coyotes can learn to target pets as prey items and in rare cases, become aggressive in the presence of people.

Division officials also caution that at this time of the year, many coyotes are rearing their young and can be especially aggressive and territorial.

The Division considers any coyote that behaves aggressively toward people to be a risk to public safety and will kill the animal if possible. Division officials recommend reporting any conflict with coyotes to the local DOW office.

... my old neighborhood in Pasadena, CA -- and that's right in the heart of one of the most urbanized counties in the entire country! People are constantly forewarned to keep their small pets inside, especially at night.

The largest land-based wild animals we have out here are pigs. In fact, I just saw a sow and two mid-sized youngsters the other day, right across Kuliouou stream from where I live. But honestly, they're only a problem if the sow senses that her offsring are in some sort of danger.

... in L.A. County where coyotes have attacked people who were simply out walking their dogs. Granted, the pets were the intended target, but the coyotes turned on the owners when they tried to defend their animals.

And really, small children should never be discounted as a possible target of coyotes, especially in areas where the animals have clearly lost their fear of humans.

coyotes hiking in the hills a few years ago. She recorded a few coyotes following her before she was attacked and killed by the pack.

You'll can argue guns all you want but it's a human right to defend one's self and there's never been a better device created for self defense. Young people, old people, women, men, the disabled, everyone can use a gun to defend themselves.

As far as gun deaths go: Japan has no guns, very low crime, almost no gun deaths, and a very high rate of suicide. Switzerland has an automatic weapon in every house, very low crime, very few gun deaths(suicides deaths are mostly from gun shots) and a extremely low suicide rate. Crime, gun violence, suicide rates seem more related to culture/laws than to gun ownership if these 2 nations are anything to go by.

Switzerland has an automatic weapon in every house, very low crime, very few gun deaths(suicides deaths are mostly from gun shots) and a extremely low suicide rate.

While I don't think the topic of suicide is particularly relevant to the current discussion, Switzerland has a fairly high suicide rate. Not quite sure where you got the idea that it's rate was "extremely low". It's #8 out of 36 OECD countries.

I'm gonna mock up a quick scatter plot of % of households with guns and suicide rate. Not sure what it'll show. I'll post the results in 15 minutes or so.

And he's not new to TalkLeft, he's been providing information for TalkLeft readers since 2009, see here,here and here, for a few examples. I think it's great that he cared enough to register and comment today and interact directly.

I think anyone who trys to buy a firearm should have to take something similar to the Hunters safety course Prior to being able to walk out of a store with a gun.

They make hunters do hands on shooting and a written test before getting their papers to be legal to hunt so why shouldn't they make normal gun owners to something similar?

I have owned guns for years and just recently took Rich Wyatts 3 day Gun Training Course with my wife and what I realized was how much I didn't know about guns! Even with all my years of hands on use with guns.

After taking this course the Wyatts offer I personally think its a MUST DO if your gonna own anykind of firearm! I would recommend it to my 90yr old grandma and just for the record over 50% of the class I was in was men and women over 50 yrs old a few retired policemen, Gunsmiths and even a few young women!

Knowledge is something NO ONE can ever take away from you and the Wyatts even offer a full money back guarantee if your not satisfied after taking the class! Thats pretty cool if you ask me!

My wife wouldn't touch a gun if you payed her before the class and since we have a 15 month old son she figured she better learn how to safely opperate a gun just in case and now after taking the course my wife was the fastest draw and shoot in the class being able to safely pull her gun and shoot her gun in under 1 second (FASTER THAN ME!) and learned to take a gun apart clean it and put it back together!

My wife is no longer afraid of guns and I am proud of her for stepping up and learning about something even though she was afraid of it..

And who knows one day that Knowledge could come in handy but now at least she has it ~~

I choose to not own a gun, but I certainly respect the rights of those who do. And in certain circumstances, such as where you apparently reside in rural Colorado, guns may be a necessity.

Like I said, it's all about assessing your own particular personal situation honestly and wisely, so that you can make an informed and responsible choice. I am a firm believer in the inherent power of education and reason, especially on this topic.

The 3 day Gun Training Course that I took with my wife At Gunsmoke with Rich Wyatt Cost $750 bucks and to a person who's not interested in guns that is about the same as $10,000. BUT ITS WORTH EVERY PENNY TRUST ME !!

However the whole first day is in a classroom going over alot of Scenarios and alot of mindset chats with about 1 hr of you learning how to handle an unloaded gun from the holster to the drawn position outdoors at the end of the day.

Then Days 2 & 3 is at a gun range they walk the Never Ever user through A to Z on everything you could possibly want to know I asked 1000 questions over those 2 days and they answered every one with a smile.

This course is amazing and for those of us who are like me and love Knowledge they also have a 5 day course which starts off where the 3 day ended.

They also do 3 and 5 day Rifle classes which I have not taken and I bet they cover alot more of the hunting oriented things your talking about however I am not a hunter so I am not really to sure about that side of it ?? However I do want to take the Rifle one as well.

Word of the day, I'm a big time hoplophobe. Danger I can handle, the thought of shooting somebody I can't.

But I'm also a freedom evangelical, a bigger defender of the second amendment in the hoplophobe community would be hard to find. Dictators love unarmed peasants...party on gun people, just don't shoot me;)

I have a rational fear of armed police or paramilitaries....but it is all about the power granted to the person. The weapon is an inanimate object without a human being wielding it.

The fear I have of even touching an unloaded gun is irrational, I must admit. Irrational but real.

The slogan is true "guns don't kill people, people do". Though it is also true that guns make it a helluva lot easier to do.

They also strike me as the weapon of a coward...ya wanna kill somebody it would be nice if ya had to get up close and personal to do it. An extra chance to pause and think and decide against taking a life. But we can't uninvent the blasted things unfortunately.

I think some fear of touching one is also good. Keeps you from being reckless. Sure, guns don't kill people on their own, but they do have a way of turning accidents into tragedies. And yes, it also enables killing people way too easily.

One time we visited a friend in AZ and went out into the desert and he set up a clay pigeon thrower and showed my now-wife how to hold and shoot a shotgun. I think it was a small one, like a 410.

Anyway she smoked the first pigeon she shot at and had a complete blast.

We both still treat guns with total respect, they're definitely not toys, but they are fun to use.

It's a skill, like sinking bank shots in 8 ball, or hitting the corners on penalty kicks, or hitting the center circle in darts.

I remember spending hours as a kid shooting at targets and cans and stuff with my wrist-rocket, and my kids and I now shoot bows and arrows in the back yard.

I think once most people become more familiar with something like guns, kitchen knives, nail guns, welding torches, whatever, their fear generally recedes and is replaced by healthy respect, which to me seems like a good thing.

And, yes, guns do enable killing people way too easily. My kids do not know I have a gun. Some things they don't need to know until they're older.

I think you are a libertarian evangelical, which is not the same thing.

Because if you were a freedom evangelical, it would not be such a simplistic issue - as we have recognized (ever since Aristotle) the complexity of where one individual's freedom begins vs. another's end is enormous. As one example, when all of society is free to carry handguns, the freedom (i.e., right to be safe and life a full life) is reduced.

and if someone takes your life, they've infringed on your rights, and committed a crime. Unless you attacked them of course, then they were defending their right to life.

Best we can do Doc, what can I tell ya. Your neighbor owning an AK-47 alone doesn't infringe on your right to life. Though I agree it makes the neighborhood less safe, and I wouldn't wanna live next door to an AK-47 owner. But such risk is the cost of doing business in a free society. (Not that we have a free society or anything)

In a perfect world of my design there would be no guns...but thats pipe-dreaming, and I find attempts by humans to perfect the world too often jam things up even worse. There are some cruel facts of life we must accept.

Some people may be fine with surrendering inalienable rights in an attempt to build a utopia...I'm not one of those people. I think such attempts are futile, and dangerous.

I also love it! (none / 0) (#87)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 07:34:18 AM PST
Reminds me of some of the old threads back in the mid 2000's when the societal issues as they relate to crime were often hotly debated instead of posts about how some blogger doesn't know jack about politics.

I think your confused?
You said Sugar Coating Stupidity serves no one ????

Your not making any Friends on here bud!

I think you missed something
The best thing about this site is that
NO ONE IS SUGAR COATING ANYTHING!

Some People are giving personal Opinions others are presenting facts on certain topics.

The only person that Isn't making alot of sense is you!

I tell you I know something first hand ( Coyote Attacks in my hometown ) and you call me a liar then someone posts a link to exactly what I am talking about and then you go off on a tangent claiming I said something along the lines of Guns are the save all in the case of a Coyote attacks Which I never said.

This site is an Awesome place to state your opinions or facts you have however no one wants you to call them names or continue to argue with you once they have presented a proven fact.

That was the comment titled, "I feel like this site is being spammed" and it was in response to this comment which was, itself, insulting (or so I felt). However, if my comment was taken as more of a comment about the person's writing ability (I make typos in every post, so it wasn't that) rather than their argumentation/communication ability, that person is your friend and I have no problem whatsoever with that comment getting deleted.

I was referring to the comment titled, "Bleh". And I don't need an explanation, it's your site and your prerogative. But I did want to say that I was disappointed that the "Bleh" comment in particular was deleted, as I stuck to the topic and thought I did a reasonable job of being constructive.

Feel free to delete both of these most recent comments to free up more space when the thread hits 200 again (not being snarky, these are "non-essential" comments).